Artificial intelligence is quickly becoming part of everyday life, from healthcare to hiring. In response, governments around the world are working to make sure these systems are safe, fair, and accountable. The European Union has already passed a major law called the AI Act, which sets strict rules for how AI can be developed and used. South Korea has also introduced its own national regulations, and countries like Australia, Brazil, Canada, and India are currently drafting similar laws.
In contrast, the United States is taking a very different approach. Instead of creating strong federal safeguards, the U.S. government is focusing on removing regulations to encourage rapid innovation. This has created a growing gap between the U.S. and much of the world when it comes to AI safety and oversight.
Shane Tepper, an AI expert, explains: "The EU’s AI Act imposes strict safeguards; South Korea has passed one; Australia, Brazil, Canada, and India are drafting theirs. Meanwhile, U.S. companies now face the choice of building safer, region-specific systems for overseas markets or dumping untested versions on Americans while exporting compliant builds abroad."
He argues that this approach to deregulation is not only risky but also further isolates the United States from the global AI community.
As a result, American AI companies are now facing a difficult decision. They can choose to build safer, more compliant versions of their technologies to meet the rules in other countries. Or they can continue releasing less-tested versions in the U.S., where there are fewer legal requirements. In many cases, this means that American consumers could end up using products that would not meet safety standards elsewhere.
This growing divide raises serious concerns about who is being protected by AI regulation, and who is being left behind.
What does this mean? Why is this important?
The growing divide in AI regulation is placing U.S. companies in a difficult position. Since countries like those in the European Union and South Korea have strict rules, American companies that want to operate internationally must meet those higher standards. This often means building safer, more controlled systems for international markets, while releasing less-tested versions in the U.S. Another option is to avoid entering stricter markets altogether, which could limit their ability to grow and compete on a global scale.
This situation has raised serious concerns. Without clear national safety standards or accountability measures, AI systems in the U.S. can make biased, inaccurate, or unfair decisions. These systems are already being used in areas like hiring, housing, education, healthcare, and policing. Yet in many cases, people do not even know that an algorithm was involved in a decision that affected them. And if something goes wrong, it is often difficult, and sometimes even impossible, for someone to understand why it happened or to challenge the outcome.
Meanwhile, the same companies are building safer, more responsible versions of these tools for countries that require it. This could leave Americans more vulnerable to harm, while people in other parts of the world benefit from better protections. In the absence of strong federal rules in the U.S., the responsibility for identifying and addressing the risks of AI falls to individuals, local communities, and watchdog groups. But they are often left without the tools, transparency, or support they need.
This growing imbalance leads to a troubling question: if companies are capable of building safer AI for other countries, why should Americans be expected to settle for anything less?
AI will continue to shape decisions that affect millions of lives. The U.S. cannot afford to fall behind when it comes to protecting its own citizens. The risks are no longer theoretical. They are already here. Americans deserve the same level of safety, transparency, and accountability that people in other countries are beginning to receive through stronger laws. It is time for policymakers to step up and put clear, enforceable rules in place that prioritize public interest over corporate convenience. Without meaningful action, the gap will only grow wider and so will the harm.
